Homestar Runner Wiki Forum

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060119/D8F81BBO3.html

Google is getting a lot of props from me for this. Anyone who tells the government to buck off, is cool in my book

_________________

I read something about this on Yahoo!.

Something this article doesn't mention that the one on Yahoo! did is that the information was supposed to be devoid of information regarding WHO was searching for WHAT.

Seems like it would be kinda useless to have the WHAT without the WHO.

I, for one, don't really care if I'm monitored, though. I'm doing nothing wrong, and if someone wants to be bored out of their mind, listening to phone calls and whatnot, it's their problem. The only problem I have is that, by monitoring me, they're wasting resources.

Either way, though, I don't have a problem with people (who are not breaking the law) telling the government to respect their privacy.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

All this mess boiling down to kids seeing nekkidness. Yet there's hardly ever the same effort to expel the amount of violence children are subjected to...I guess it's because sex is and always will be far, far worse than seeing some innocent dude's head get messily chopped off...in real life...</sarcasm>

_________________
The meaning of life is 'bucket.'

FOR PONY!!!

Yeah. Wow..

At least they coulda tried and said "Terrorists make porn"..

If they were gonna do this to crack down on child porn, then I could see it being a good idea, but even then, it's a massive invasion of privacy of innocent people for the sake of catching "the bad guys"

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

dang, now theyre gonna start checking to see who's looking at Porn? isnt that one of our rights?

this violates our privacy, you guys, its horible. first the phone and our houses, now what we wanna look at on the internet? its madness! soon, they want to track our cars, then theyre gonna instert chips in our skin, and make us all conform to the unities!

Anarchy, i call for, Anarchy!

_________________

Anarchy solves nothing, all it causes is violence and other nasty stuff.

_________________
RIP Nathan "Buz" Buzdor

If you are under the age of 18 or 21 in some states, it is illegal to look at porn.

_________________

what about in texas? were the freest of free there is.

_________________

It is either 18 or 21. In most states, the age is 18, some it is 21.

_________________

Err, no.

_________________
CLOCK

Good for Google, standing up for themselves. I couldn't care elss if the governemtn looked for what i was searching (North Korea, shredded lettuce,) but other people would, and Google is decent enoguh to realze that. Plus, sick kids would still manage to get around and manage to look at the pron anyway, there's always a way around.

I heard about this on PRM. Good for Google. Stickin' it to the man.

_________________

Google has become the new rebel. This'll probably get them a lot more traffic...and more crap they're not giving to the Feds!

_________________

err... yes.

_________________

Ha, ha. The Government got denied by the google nerds.

Seriously though, the government could save alot of resources by just encouraging parents to monitor their kids internet...things. I'm not sure who would have to do the punsihemnt (I'm assuming the kids) if they got caught if the law is...done, but if it is the kids then I don;t think that's very fair to the parents. They're their kids and if the parents have a problem with them looking at the stuff let them deal with it.

_________________

Props to Google for sticking up for themselves.


That's an excellent point. That's also my stand on things like the Grand Theft Auto hullabaloo that went on a while back. Parents need to be parents and not let their children run wild on a place like the Internet. They also need to know what game they're getting their kid. Getting an 8 year-old child an M rated game is not the smartest thing to do at all, nor is giving them free range of the Internet.

_________________

I've said this before, but there's an excellent reason why the 1998 law will do absolutely nothing today: P2P. If it was difficult to regulate adult materials on the Internet in 1998, it's nearly impossible to do so nowadays.

well theres alot of pornographic websites out there that offer free galleries of porn.

_________________

Still, you usually have to download software to get a wide range of files to download. You can easily block downloads from un-authorized sites with explorer so, that really shouldn't be a problem.



Again, you canchoose to block certain sites.

What really gets me is the lazy parents that don't watch their kids don't even use the computer to do the monitoring for them.

_________________

I don't know if you're hinting at this or not, Kiss, but, to me, it sounds like this is a case of lazy parents wanting the government to raise their kids for them.

While there is a lot of stuff on the internet that I would rather not see, I'm not going to say that the people who want to see it should not be able to.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

you mean, just like what theyre trying to do for Video games?

_________________

Free how exactly?



“Texans have made a decision about marriage and if there is some other state that has a more lenient view than Texas, then maybe that’s a better place for them to live,” - Rick Perry, always eager to please.

Sorry, you can think you have a nice little state if you want, but you have some nerve claiming it's the "freeist there is". Back before 2000, anyway, you were only a small step above muslim countries in terms of minority rights. Being 5 years up the ladder from throwing gay people in jail probably means you're not quite at "free-est" of the free, nor are any of the other states that had the ban after others dropped it years ago, many of which still retain it.

Since Texas is one of the most macho-ist conservative in the U.S. it will never be the "freeist of the free". Like it or not, liberalism equates to more freedoms.

Sure, it's probably best if you're a straight white christian macho-wannabe male. But for anyone else, it's a cramp on their style.

Sorry for the toastpaint, but some people have to learn that certain things are very stupid to say.

_________________
CLOCK

listen rose,. just cause you cant get married here or have sex here doesnt mean everyone else is free. and besides, most of the population is Hispanics. apparantly, any place you cant live is supposidly "Not Free" when really, yes, texas here is the Freest of Free there is.

also, you dont live here, so dont comments on it.

_________________

I don't think you quite understand what "free-est of free" implies. You can only truly judge a society by how well it treats it's minorities. In respect to that, texas looses.



Texas is not the Free-est of Free there is. Prove to me how it is the freeist of free there is. You're pulling a statement out of your arse that's really being obnoxious towards people who are most certainly not freest as free in Texas. Your pathetic little nationalism(state-ism) flies in the face of every piece of evidence otherwise. California is more free than Texas. Canada is more free than Texas. Britian is probably more free than Texas. Looking at their social development and how they treat minorities, Texas is most certainly not very free.

Texas has a poor track record for racism, sexism, and rampant homophobia. Maybe for your normal white straight macho male self that's great freedom - but a society made up of one type of person is never a good one, so it always makes sense to cater to minorities. Texas does not.



I'll comment as I please, especially if your complete idiot of a governer declares a petty little war on homosexuality.

_________________
CLOCK

I'm gonna toastpaint this, because I can see where it's going, and I don't like it.

Something that I find really interesting here is that Google basically stood up to "the man" here. It's gonna be interesting to see how this plays out.
According to this article, the info was not actually going to be used for prosecution, but instead for defense of the constitutionality of the law. Not sure how saying "people are looking for porn, so this law must be constitutional!" will work in court, though. My guess is, not too well.

Interestingly enough, the stuff that Yahoo, MSN, and AOL turned over really didn't have anything to do with who was searching, so I don't see what kind of use this would have in prosectution, either.

The more I think about it, the sillier this subpoena sounds.

_________________
If you can't fix it with a hammer, you have an electrical problem.

I heard about this on the radio a few days ago. I think they said something about even though it appears google is standing up to stick it to the man, they are really holding out for some kinda deal actually. I wish I could remember all that was said, but it basically made it sound like google wants something in return. Perhaps Funyuns?

_________________

What? That's like kidnapping someone and getting them forcibly pregnant, for defense of the constituionality of praternal rights.

This is even stupider than the reason Google had for setting up the censors in China.

_________________
CLOCK

Again rose, you belive what the people wherever you live say, you think that Censorship in china is wrong, when really, its a good Marketing strategy, now because of that, theyre gonna make more. but no..... since they cant look up words like "Rebelion" or "Democracy", they just wont be able to live....ohh how sad.

and for the final time, since you dont live here or were born here, you wont understand the way things are here.

Also, im not some "Macho-Wacho" White guy, Im a Proud Mexican America, And im as Free As Free Can Be.

_________________

COLA, replace "marketing" with "subjugation" and you will get what the Chinese Government is really doing with this. Censorship is never good. The Chinese are controlling people by denying them knowledge.

It is sad, these people are being denied their basic human rights. I'm sorry that you do not care about other people's suffering, but I do.

You don't know that, just because she wasn't born here doesn't mean she doesn't know what is going on here.

No, but you sound like someone who should be walking around in a white hood and burning crosses. I guarantee that 40 or 50 years ago you would not be saying the same things that you are now.

_________________

No, I don't believe what the people wherever I live say, and that's a stupid statement as I can say the same of you, and it would probably be more accurate since Texas prides itself on it's social tradition. I don't think you get that this is the view of countries which are more socially evolved than the U.S., or at least that's what most people who have lived in both say.



Oh for smeg's sake, that's pathetic. In other words, I made a good point, you can't admit you're wrong so you're using some of the lowliest forms of wriggling out of a desperate sitaution available to you. What are you going to do next? call my views "immature"?

In other other words you're saying because I don't have heavily religious and social values instilled in me from birth that would undoubtedly skew my view heavily, I can't make a comment. That's rubbish. It's clear that Texas does not respect it's minorities, and if you are as free as free can be, it's because someone else is being persecuted to make way for your "rights".

Your whole argument amounts to nothing but a bunch of patriotic nonsense. You've shown nothing to suggest that Texas is Free as Free can be but your own pointless blabbering, while it's plain to see there are plenty of places that offer much better rights for people as a whole. You buy into "Freedom" being a buzzword.



No, right now you're being as Dumb as Dumb can't be. Flamboyant patriosism is the worst way to make a point. I'm not going to let go of this because I'm tired of certain people showing a blatant lack of care for minorities. I would have let a silly patriotistic comment slide if it wasn't for your insistant pushing of something so ridiculous, even admitting that you don't give a crap that gay people couldn't have relations until very recently as long as you could pounce around doing... what exactly? What magical rights do you have that other states don't? The fact that you capitalise it shows that you've learned it off by heart and put little thought into it's meaning.

You want to be as free as free can be? Find some Island and make your own rules. That would be getting closer to "free as free can be".

_________________
CLOCK